DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the releasable locking mechanism (claim 8), seal (claim 9), and sensors (claims 12-13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 19-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 14-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein in an interconnected configuration the micro data center module, first module and second module are interconnected via a releasable locking mechanism”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the first module and second module are the same as in claim 1 or different.
For the purposes of examination below, Examiner has interpreted claim 8 as reading:
“wherein in an interconnected configuration the micro data center module, the first module, and the second module are interconnected via a releasable locking mechanism.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmitt (US 20120302150 A1). Reference cited on IDS.
As to claim 1, Schmidt discloses: An interconnectable micro data center module 10 (Fig. 8A; see Fig. 4-8B) comprising:
walls (of 11, 20; Fig. 8A) that define an internal area adapted to receive server hardware apparatus (par. 0038);
a first surface (upper surface of 11, 20; Fig. 8A) adapted for interconnection with a first module 12 (11 and 12 are stacked – physically interconnected, airflow interconnected through vents 46; Fig. 8A; additionally interconnected by data – see Fig. 7; par. 0036-0037 describe data interconnection/power and cooling control in response to internal sensors 75);
interconnectable transmission means 52 (connection panel; par. 0033; Fig. 5A; see also par. 0030, 0038-0039; see also operation of environmental controller 70, which controls power and cooling in par. 0036-0039) to facilitate power and data flow between the micro data center module and the first module; and
a sensor device 54, 70, 74 (Fig. 5A, 7) capable of determining when the micro data center module is interconnected with the first module (54 outputs the status of equipment within 12; 70 controls cooling and power via internal sensors 75, can also sense interconnection by airflow/temperature exchange through vents 46 in Fig. 8; see also claims 17-20 “the infrastructure equipment operable to support operation of the information handling systems” – if they are not interconnected, the infrastructure equipment 12 will not function to support operation of the information handling systems 22 located in 11).
Regarding the preamble term, “micro”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81.
Further, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the instant case, “micro” does not establish any specific size limitation and is interpreted as merely indicating the intended use of providing a datacenter module that is smaller than some data centers and/or data center modules, and the structure of Schmidt is capable of performing the intended use.
As to claim 2, Schmidt discloses:
further comprising a first opening 46 (vents; Fig. 8A) to enable air flow from a cooling system to circulate through the internal area of the micro data center module.
As to claim 3, Schmidt discloses:
wherein the first opening is located on the first surface (upper surface of 11, 20) of the micro data center module.
As to claim 4, Schmidt discloses:
wherein the first module 12 is a base module containing:
a power supply (UPS; par. 0039) configured to supply power to the micro data center module via the interconnectable transmission means; and
the cooling system (par. 0039) configured to cool the internal area of the micro data center module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (US 20120302150 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Slessman (US 20150028617 A1).
As to claim 5, Schmidt does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a second surface adapted for interconnection with a second module.
However, Slessman discloses:
a second surface (end surfaces of 25; Fig. 1B-1C) adapted for interconnection with a second module 25;
in order to maximize facility space (par. 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the related art(s) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schmidt as suggested by Slessman, e.g., providing:
further comprising a second surface adapted for interconnection with a second module;
in order to maximize facility space.
Additionally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination/modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As to claim 6, Schmidt in view of Slessman discloses:
wherein the second module 25 (Slessman) is an expansion module defining an additional internal area adapted to receive an additional server hardware apparatus (can house servers; par 0038, 0040; Slessman).
As to claim 7, Schmidt in view of Slessman discloses:
wherein the second surface comprises a removeable panel 30 (door; Fig 1C; par. 0038-0039; Slessman), which when removed exposes a second opening configured to enable air flow from the cooling system to circulate through the additional internal area of the expansion module (cooling in series; par. 0041; Slessman).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 8-18, the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the apparatus as recited in the dependent claims 8 and 10, including all of the limitations of their base claims and intervening claims, and at least in part, because they recite the following limitations:
8. (As best understood) The interconnectable micro data center module of claim 6,
wherein in an interconnected configuration the micro data center module, the first module, and the second module are interconnected via a releasable locking mechanism.
10. The interconnectable micro data center module of claim 6,
wherein the base module further comprises a control device configured to transmit control instructions via the interconnectable transmission means to one or more of:
the server hardware apparatus in the micro data center module; and
the additional server hardware apparatus in the second module.
Bailey (US 20170359922 A1), Driggers (US 20120147552 A1), Sheehan (US 20210251101 A1), and Crawford (US 20190174651 A1) disclose conventional interconnectable/modular datacenters, but do not adequately suggest interconnection via a releasable locking mechanism or control device transmitting control instructions via the interconnectable transmission means.
None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, can be reasonably construed as adequately teaching the above claimed elements, in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Further, Examiner has not identified any double patenting issues.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB R CRUM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835